Ontario Superior Court: Allows IPV Tort Claims in Family Dispute

Ontario court allows tort claims for intimate partner violence in family law case After nearly two decades of marriage and almost as many years of litigation, a $3.1 million tort claim was added to a family law case just months before trial. This has been the contention is Hagopian v. Kechichian , 2026 ONSC 4405 . Here, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that tort claims for intimate partner violence (IPV), assault, and battery could be folded into a long-running family law proceeding. This decision follows the Supreme Court of Canada’s recognition of a standalone IPV tort in Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia , 2026 SCC 16 . Both cases give personal injury and family lawyers, and their clients, a practical read on where that tort lands. Tania Hagopian moved to amend her application in an active family law case against former spouse Kevork Kechichian, seeking to add the following tort claims: While the court granted the IPV, assault, and battery claims, it however denied the rest. The key question under Rule 11(3) of the Family Law Rules was whether the amendments would cause non-compensable prejudice to Kevork. The threshold for refusal is high, with the onus sitting on the party opposing the amendment. In its decision, the court applied Ahluwalia directly to push back on Kevork’s sweeping production demands. As stated in this SCC decision, the IPV tort requires only three things: Harm does not need to be proven separately, since it is presumed once those three elements are met. The court also rejected Kevork’s demand for a detailed incident schedule, noting that per Ahluwalia , courts should not impose evidentiary standards that ignore the closed-door reality of coercive control. It also held that there is no limitation period for physical assaults in intimate relationships under s. 16(1)(h.2) of Ontario’s Limitations Act. Again, not every tort claim presented by Tania made the cut. The court denied the claims for abuse of process and $2 million in income loss, finding that they caused prejudice no costs order could fix. Further, both claims had been available throughout the case’s 9.5-year history, and Tania offered no explanation for the delay. Kevork’s counsel was out of the country until late August 2026, leaving virtually no time to prepare before the peremptory October 5, 2026 trial. Applying the reasoning in Moghini v. Dashti , 2016 ONSC 2116 , the court found that using Rule 11(3)’s mandatory language to introduce unquantified, never-vetted economic tort claims at the last minute was itself a form of prejudice that costs could not cure. The final issue centred on 305 deemed admissions arising from Tania’s failure to respond to Kevork’s Request to Admit within the 20-day window under Rule 22(4). She was self-represented and sitting final exams for her architecture degree when the massive request landed. The court withdrew the admissions, finding her mistake honest and reasonable: a court-ordered Trial Scheduling Endorsement Form (TSEF) had set a 30-day response timeline, and a self-represented litigant relying on a judge-signed order cannot be faulted for treating it as governing. Applying the three-branch test from Sharifi v. Kandhola , 2022 ONSC 478 , the court found no non-compensable prejudice to Kevork, and Tania’s June 9, 2026 response stands for trial. Bookmark Canadian Lawyer’s Personal Injury page for more news, articles, and updates for Canadian legal professionals. The Canadian Legal Newswire is a FREE newsletter that keeps you up to date on news and analysis about the Canadian legal scene, providing targeted news and information of interest to Canadian Lawyers. Please enter your email address below to subscribe.